AIBU to not understand why we have not done something about Putin?

[Dalint]

I know that it's a nuclear power, but we wouldn't really need to go nuclear? Just take him out?

Is it Putin's war or Russia's war?

Why have we not assassinated him?

If only it was that easy.
It has to worth a try, maybe it won't create world war 3.
If it does we'll all die together.
World War 3 is inevitable at some stage If its not Russia it'll be the next war criminal in wait.

This is the most perceptive post on this thread.

there will be certain parties is the West who are very happy that Putin has had a pop at the Ukraine. They can’t broadcast this, of course

I don’t think automatically swallowing the Western media’s account of world events, including who all the goodies and baddies are, makes you a ‘conspiracy theorist’. That’s a really dangerous way of thinking

Sorry, not automatically swallowing. You know what I mean

Of course they can't. It would be very wrong of them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fidel_Castro

Out of interest what is specifically that makes you clasiffy Russia's as war criminal worthy?

Hi OP, I'm an academic with a specialism in contemporary Russia, particularly Russian foreign policy.

Any attempt to assassinate a Russian president that was detected by the Russian government would carry a significant risk of nuclear retaliation by Russia. No-one is going to risk that.

Practically, it's probably impossible to assassinate Putin because of the security around him and the extent to which he isolates himself from contact with anyone outside his inner circle.

Would be pointless because the rest of the Russian political, military, and security elites have all bought in to the war and are just as implicated in the crimes being committed in Ukraine. Like him, they are wildly corrupt, anti-democratic, and now hysterically anti-western. So it's very unlikely (at the moment) that Putin going would change Russia's behaviour.

Unclear how much real support there is for the war in Russia but it is pretty clear that even those with doubts about the merits of the war have very negative views of Ukraine and of the West. More useful to think of it as Russia's war than Putin's war.

No he didn't, except in one very specific area - he talked negatively about Germany's approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (for Russian gas). But this seems to have been a combination of wanting Germany to be reliant on the US instead and using it as a way to have a go at NATO (long story).

Otherwise he was creepily subservient to Putin. Hard to tell whether that was because Putin had the goods on him or because he just really loves dictators, but the end result was the same. The only negative about the Trump presidency from Putin's point of view was that he fucked it all up by being too obvious (unsurprising since the man's so monumentally thick that he makes George W. Bush look like Einstein). When you have Republicans and Democrats - in an environment as partisan as Congress was in 2017 - working together to pass legislation to block Trump lifting sanctions against Russia, because they were so worried about what he's going to do, you know things are bad.

This is an interesting thread.

I agree with the majority, even if it could be done it would just be trading a bad situation for a worse one.

I'm finding it quite interesting that the OP starts this thread ostensibly to ask why it hasn't/can't be done but is then combative and weirdly resistant to the posters who are very clearly explaining why it would be such a bad idea.

What's the real agenda @Dalint?

Pressures on the Health Service aren't really Putin are they? We can't take him out unless we want WW3.

What's the point in you posting this drivel? What don't we assassinate Johnson for all the damage he's caused, all the care home patients who died? For leaving Afghans who'd worked for us behind to die when he saved animals. That's ridiculous to even suggest isn't?

I'm finding it quite interesting that the OP starts this thread ostensibly to ask why it hasn't/can't be done but is then combative and weirdly resistant to the posters who are very clearly explaining why it would be such a bad idea.

This is my main reaction when reading this thread.

Because she wants a unicorn?

A form of magical thinking - that if you want something badly enough, someone will come up with ‘something’

And that the only reason they haven’t is because they don’t care as much as you do, even though you don’t have the first idea of a plan (even in its most broad brush form) that would stand a chance of success and make a positive, desirable difference.

Doing ‘something’ just to be seen to be doing something is always a poor option, and there are many posters on this thread who are making that and very similar points over and over again. We’re not buying in to magical thinking

Agree with what's been said but mostly--he is making a lot of people even more rich!!! Restrict supply, prices skyrocket, who benefits? Already rich fuckers!

It is between two sovereign nations.

The fact that one is a bully and invaded the other is relevant

The West did not do anything when Crimea was invaded, the bully was given the green light to push boundaries not expecting the West to do anything

They had a rude awakening when Ukraine stood its ground and help poured in from the West which the bully was not expecting

I still reckon Ukraine did not get the memo from Putin saying this will be over in 48 hours 😎😎😎

Appeasement never wins and bullies have to be stood up to

Throwing buckets of sunshine around is not the answer and all parties must take that into consideration as no one wins, if that happens 😳😳

And posting random facts which aren't true.

Yes and this too.